"contractual breach, but remedies in English law are footed on the principle that full compensation for all losses, pecuniary or not, should be made good. In exceptional circumstances, the law goes further to require a wrongdoer to make restitution for their gains from breaching a contract, and may demand specific performance of the agreement rather than monetary compensation. It is also possible that a contract becomes voidable, because, depending on the specific type of contract, one party failed to make adequate disclosure or they made misrepresentations during negotiations. Unconscionable agreements can be escaped where a person was under duress or"
"Breach of contract Breach of contract is a legal cause of action and a type of civil wrong, in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance. Breach occurs when a party to a contract fails to fulfill his or her obligation as described in the contract, or communicates an intent to fail the obligation or otherwise appears not to be able to perform his or her obligation under the contract. In a ""minor"" breach (a partial breach or"
"Robinson v Harman Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Ex Rep 850 is an English contract law case, which is best known for a classic formulation by Parke B (at 855) on the purpose and measure of compensatory damages for breach of contract that, Mr Harman wrote a letter, dated 15 April 1846, agreeing to grant Mr Robinson a lease on a house in High Street, Croydon, for 21 years, starting on 19 September at £110 a year. Then Mr Harman changed his mind and refused to complete the lease. It turned out the house was worth much more than £110"
"issued verbal calls challenging an employer's hiring practices such as only using non-union workers. A revised Master and Servant Act was passed in 1867, which supposedly limited imprisonment to ""aggravated"" breaches of contract (where injury to persons or property was likely to result), but it was clear that only workers were subject to its provisions. Imprisonment, even for non-aggravated breaches of contract, continued when working people failed to comply with court orders for specific performance or for non-payment of monetary damages and fines. Between 1858 and 1875 on average 10,000 prosecutions a year took place under the Act in Britain."
"what he has contracted to do, or does what he has contracted not to do, an ordinary breach of contract is said to have occurred."" This is breach in its starkest, most commonsensical form: essentially a failure to comply with the terms of a contract. All terms are susceptible to breach; in other words, both positive and negative obligations can be breached. There are two requirements for ordinary breach in the case of a positive obligation: Where the debtor has a negative obligation, positive malperformance occurs when the debtor does the act he is bound to refrain from doing. The"
"made by courts having jurisdiction based on a choice of court clause. For example, the Brussels regime instruments (31 European states) and the Hague Choice of Court Agreements Convention (European Union and Mexico), as well as several instruments related to a specific area of law, may require courts to enforce and recognize choice of law clauses and foreign judgments. In the United Kingdom, breach of contract is defined in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 as: [i] non-performance, [ ii] poor performance, [iii] part-performance, or [iv] performance which is substantially different from what was reasonably expected. Innocent parties may repudiate"
"Breach of promise Breach of promise is a common law tort, abolished in many jurisdictions. It was also called breach of contract to marry, and the remedy awarded was known as heart balm. From at least the Middle Ages until the early 20th century, a man's promise of engagement to marry a woman was considered, in many jurisdictions, a legally binding contract. If the man were to subsequently change his mind, he would be said to be in ""breach"" of this promise and subject to litigation for damages. The converse of this was seldom true; the concept that ""it's a"
"mistake, mutual mistake, mistranscription, and misunderstanding. Mistake can be- (1) Mistake of Law; or (2) Mistake of Fact Mistake of law: when a party enters into a contract, without the knowledge of the law in the country, the contract is affected by such mistakes but it is not void. The reason here is that ignorance of law is not an excuse. However, if a party is ""induced"" to enter into a contract by the mistake of law then such a contract is not valid. Illustration: Harjoth and Danny make a contract grounded on the erroneous belief that a particular debt"
"aggrieved party chooses not to accept a repudiation occurring before the time set for performance, not only will the contract continue on foot, but also there will be no right to damages unless and until an actual breach occurs. Breach of contract Breach of contract is a legal cause of action and a type of civil wrong, in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance. Breach occurs when a party to a contract fails to fulfill his or"
"see if it contained a clause that governed the employer's duty of care with respect to the employee. If so, the court may be able characterize the claim as a breach of the contract, instead of a tort, and apply the law of the State A either because it was the place where the contract was made (the ""lex loci contractus"") or, if it were the place where the wage or salary was to be paid, where the contract was intended to be performed (the ""lex loci solutionis""). In this context, since the 1960s, the courts in the United States"
"Acceleration clause An acceleration clause —or acceleration covenant— in the law of contracts, is a term that fully matures the performance due from a party upon a breach of the contract. Such clauses are most prevalent in mortgages and similar contracts to purchase real estate in installments. Suppose, for example, the contract was for A to purchase Blackacre from B for $100,000, to be paid in 5 monthly installments of $20,000. If A makes the first two payments, but fails to make the third payment, an acceleration clause would require that A must immediately pay B the entire balance of"
"R v Miller R v Miller [1982] UKHL 6 is an English criminal law case demonstrating how actus reus can be interpreted to be not only an act, but a failure to act. James Miller, a vagrant, was squatting at 9 Grantham Road, Sparkbrook, an inner-city area in Birmingham, England, in August 1980 when he accidentally set fire to the mattress on which he was sleeping with a cigarette butt. Rather than taking action to put out the fire, he moved to a different room; the fire went on to cause extensive damage to the cost of £800. He was"
"Saunders v Anglia Building Society Saunders v Anglia Building Society [1970] UKHL 5 also known as ""Gallie v Lee"" is an English contract law case in the United Kingdom. It established that in contract law the burden lies with the plaintiff to demonstrate he has not acted negligently and, that consequently, the plea of ""non est factum"" cannot normally be claimed by a person of full capacity. Mrs Gallie, who had broken her spectacles, signed a document without first informing herself of its contents. She was lied to by her nephew's business partner, Mr Lee, that the documents were merely"
"signs a contractual document will be bound by the terms in that document, this rule is referred to as the rule in ""L'Estrange v Graucob"". This rule is approved by the High Court of Australia in ""Toll(FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd"". But a valid contract may (with some exceptions) be made orally or even by conduct. Remedies for breach of contract include damages (monetary compensation for loss) and, for serious breaches only, repudiation (i.e. cancellation). The equitable remedy of specific performance, enforceable through an injunction, may be available if damages are insufficient. Typically, contracts are oral or written,"
"of one-sixth enables the wronged party to secure the cancelation of the sale or purchase; that is, an article worth six money-units in the market may not be sold for seven or bought for five (B. M. 49b). It seems that overcharge by the merchant selling to the consumer was the most frequent instance in which the application of the rule was called for; the claim had to be made as soon as the buyer had had an opportunity to show his purchase to a merchant or to one of his friends. It is said that R. Ṭarfon taught at"
"Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1961] EWCA Civ 7 is a landmark English contract law case. It introduced the concept of innominate terms, a category between ""warranties"" and ""conditions"". Under the English sale of goods principles, a condition is a term whose breach entitles the injured party to repudiate the contract, but a breach of warranty shall give rise only to damages. In this case, Diplock LJ proposed that some terms could lead ""either"" to the right to terminate a contract as a"
"to inform a police officer when questioned, that he had on his pocket a sharp object (needle). R v Miller R v Miller [1982] UKHL 6 is an English criminal law case demonstrating how actus reus can be interpreted to be not only an act, but a failure to act. James Miller, a vagrant, was squatting at 9 Grantham Road, Sparkbrook, an inner-city area in Birmingham, England, in August 1980 when he accidentally set fire to the mattress on which he was sleeping with a cigarette butt. Rather than taking action to put out the fire, he moved to a"
"Re Brian D Pierson (Contractors) Ltd Re Brian D Pierson (Contractors) Ltd [1999] BCC 26 is a UK insolvency law and company law case, concerning misfeasance and wrongful trading. Brian D Pierson (Contractors) Ltd built and maintained golf courses. It fell into difficulty after contracting parties failed to pay on two projects. It continued to trade. In June 1994 the auditor reported a ‘fundamental uncertainty’ about whether the company would continue as a going concern. (Importantly, this was not, however, what is known as a ‘going concern qualification’ of the accounts which would amount to an expression of the auditor’s"
"Court in ""Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited (in liquidation)"". Illegality in English law Illegality in English law is a potential ground in English contract law, tort, trusts or UK company law for a court to refuse to enforce an obligation. The illegality of a transaction, either because of public policy under the common law, or because of legislation, potentially means no action directly concerning the deal will be heard by the courts. The doctrine is reminiscent of the Latin phrase ""Ex turpi causa non oritur actio"", meaning ""no cause of action arises from a wrong"". The primary problem arising"
"Mistake in English contract law The law of mistake comprises a group of separate rules in English contract law. If the law deems a mistake to be sufficiently grave, then a contract entered into on the grounds of the mistake may be void. A mistake is an incorrect understanding by one or more parties to a contract. There are essentially three types of mistakes in contract, ""Res Sua"", there is a mistake as to the title/name of an involved party (where the subject matter already belongs to oneself for example) ""Res Extincta"", where subject matter does not exist Mistake as"
"F Goldsmith (Sicklesmere) Ltd v Baxter F Goldsmith (Sicklesmere) Ltd v Baxter [1970] 1 Ch 85 was a judicial decision under UK company law relating to the proper identification of a corporate party to a contract. F Goldsmith (Sicklesmere) Ltd sold a piece of land to the Mr Baxter. The memorandum of agreement gave the name of the plaintiff company, inaccurately, as Goldsmith Coaches (Sicklesmere) Ltd. There was, in fact, no such company by that name. Then Mr Baxter changed his mind and did not wish to complete. The question was whether, although the contract used the wrong name for"
"(or an owner's officer or representative, see vicarious liability), provides information, changes specification during the tendering process to unfairly benefit a particular bidder, enters into closed negotiations with an individual bidder in an effort to obtain more desirable contract conditions, etc. The most common situation in which an owner is accused of having breached Contract A occurs when a bidder is selected who is not the lowest bidder. This contravenes established custom and practice, which would normally dictate that the lowest bid be awarded the contract, but is not normally a source of a breach if handled properly. The successful"
"Illegality in English law Illegality in English law is a potential ground in English contract law, tort, trusts or UK company law for a court to refuse to enforce an obligation. The illegality of a transaction, either because of public policy under the common law, or because of legislation, potentially means no action directly concerning the deal will be heard by the courts. The doctrine is reminiscent of the Latin phrase ""Ex turpi causa non oritur actio"", meaning ""no cause of action arises from a wrong"". The primary problem arising when courts refuse to enforce an agreement is the extent"
"won. In this case, prison terms and fines may be serious (Article 28 of the ""Minimum Wage Act""), as a result, for those who pay the minimum wage, as well as for those who are paid less than that. Article 30 (billionable regualtion) ①If a representative of a corporation, an agent, a user, or any other employee commits a breach of Article 28 in respect of its business, he or she shall be punished. ②The contractor shall carry out the joint responsibility in accordance with Article 6 paragraph 7. Even though the superintendent ordered him to carry out the joint"
"now appears as an open and unlimited doctrine. The law relating to contractual estoppel was summarised in : The civil law use of issue estoppel or ""res judicata"" (literally translated as ""the fact has been decided"") is relatively uncontroversial. It expresses a general public interest that the same issue should not be litigated more than once even when the parties are different. The criminal law application, called ""double jeopardy"" provides that a person should not be tried twice for the same offence. A notable case occurred as a result of the Birmingham Six case where the House of Lords ruled"
"facto entitled the charterer to repudiate for anticipatory breach of condition. Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1961] EWCA Civ 7 is a landmark English contract law case. It introduced the concept of innominate terms, a category between ""warranties"" and ""conditions"". Under the English sale of goods principles, a condition is a term whose breach entitles the injured party to repudiate the contract, but a breach of warranty shall give rise only to damages. In this case, Diplock LJ proposed that some terms could"
"Act 1968 (e.g. car-clocking). Fraud Act 2006 The Fraud Act 2006 (c 35) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which affects England and Wales and Northern Ireland. It was given royal assent on 8 November 2006, and came into effect on 15 January 2007. The Act gives a statutory definition of the criminal offence of fraud, defining it in three classes - fraud by false representation, fraud by failing to disclose information, and fraud by abuse of position. It provides that a person found guilty of fraud was liable to a fine or imprisonment for up"
"the result of presence in a crowd. Creating a fear of imminent battery is an assault, and also may give rise to criminal liability. Non-consensual intercourse, or rape, is a particularly egregious form of battery. Property often is protected by the criminal law. Trespassing is unlawful entry onto the real property of another. Many criminal codes provide penalties for conversion, embezzlement, theft, all of which involve deprivations of the value of the property. Robbery is a theft by force. Fraud in the UK is a breach of the Fraud Act 2006 by false representation, by failure to disclose information or"
"perform any acts specified in the order with a view to redressing any loss or damage suffered by the complainant or, as the case may be, the aggrieved person as a result of the breach. A declaration that any contract entered into or performed in contravention of any provision of Part 1A or Part 2 of the Human Rights Act 1993 is an illegal contract. An order that the defendant undertakes any specified training or any other programme, or implement any specified policy or programme, to enable the defendant to comply with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1993."
"Relationship between the common law and statutory offences. Blasphemy Act 1697 The Blasphemy Act 1697 (9 Will 3 c 35) was an Act of the Parliament of England. It made it an offence for any person, educated in or having made profession of the Christian religion, by writing, preaching, teaching or advised speaking, to deny the Holy Trinity, to claim there is more than one god, to deny the truth of Christianity and to deny the Bible as divine authority. The first offence resulted in being rendered incapable of holding any office or place of trust. The second offence resulted"
"law, not a contract, and individuals are bound by it whether or not they have signed it. Signing it is intended more as a reminder to the person that they are under such obligations. To this end, it is common to sign this statement both before and after a period of employment that involves access to secrets (e.g. MI5/MI6). In addition to the Official Secrets Acts, the Naval Discipline Act 1957 made it an offence punishable with life imprisonment to spy on-board Royal Navy ships or overseas bases. This was a capital offence until 1981. 22 prosecutions occurred under the"
"breaching a rule to further their own personal interests. Rolled Steel Products (Holdings) Ltd v British Steel Corp Rolled Steel Products (Holdings) Ltd v British Steel Corp [1986] Ch 246 is a UK company law case, concerning the enforceability of obligations against a company. The case was one of the last significant cases on ""ultra vires"" under English company law before the provisions abrogating that doctrine in the Companies Act 1985 became effective. Rolled Steel Products Ltd gave security to guarantee the debts of a company called SSS Ltd to British Steel Corporation. This was a purpose that did not"
"Boykin v. Alabama Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court determined that when a defendant enters into a plea bargain, they waive their Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury. A defendant may not waive this Constitutional right unless he does so knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently. The defendant was an African-American charged with robbery, which carried a death sentence in Alabama at the time. He pled guilty. The Court first held that it had jurisdiction to review the voluntary character of the plea, given the ongoing state court"